Chapter 6.2 - The rule of protocol

This is an addition to chapter 6, brought into excistence by a comment on chapter 6.1, and because I had some additional thoughts, of course. So there you go, comments really might bring results, hint hint...

As Ella so nicely pointed out in her comment, China has in its history a regime with a certain political philosophy in which the rules of protocol have been extremely harshly executed. This certain type of philosophy has many similarities to the philosophies of regimes we know from today's Belarus and yesterday's Russia; the Soviet Union. Since they all have this common denominator, could this mean that this philosophy is the source of the topic of chapter 6.1? That is, the rigidity of the excecution of rules and traditions.

First, an introduction. Belarus is a beautiful country in the centre of Europe currently in the political shape of a presidential republic, basically meaning excactly what is sounds like; a republic governed by a president; "Soppen på toppen". The ruling power has imposed a rigid set of rules and regulations which makes pretty much anything a bureacratic nightmare. Courts seem to have little real power, organizations have to register to be able to run legally and people cannot gather in larger groups anywhere unless it is approved by the K (blank) G (blank) B. A bit of innocent critizism there, please bear with me...however, whatever one might feel about the form of government, or its legitimacy, the issue under discussion is another matter.

The Soviet leaders all instituted strict rules and regulations as to what was condoned behaviour and beliefs. However, as I understand it, the main goal of these were to underline the supreme power of the state above the individual and to ensure the continuation of dictatorial power. The same might be said about the goal of the rules of conduct in Belarus. One might say that the rule of law is weak since the law at any time might be changed as to suit the purpose of the ruling regime. But what does this control from the government tell us about the rule of protocol? Next to nothing, because the two are completely different acpects.

I believe there might have been some confusion in 6.1 as to how my own concept of "the rule of protocol" on the one hand, and the rule of law on the other, differ from each other. Therefore, I have added definitions on both posts to clarify. In general, the rule of law is fixed and absolute while the rule of protocol is an attemt to describe more unofficial rules of conduct that is practiced by officials or the public in general. Now that the background is established and the conscepts are clarified the main issue might be attended to.

China is socialst republic with an economic system of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. The footprints of Communism is engraving and the system is still headed by one party, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). However, the nation as a whole has changed enormously, as I have argued in an earlier post it might be considered more of a capitalist country than anywhere else in some aspects. The aspects of the rule of protocol and the rule of law though, seem to have survived the changes.

The rule of law in China is, as I wrote in 6.1, dominated by corruption. This however, is combatted by the government. The signing of laws that establish stricter rules for economic conduct and "economic purity" for officials contribute to lower the rate of corruption. In addition comes stricter punishments, even the death penalty for economic crimes like embezzlement and alike. This does not change the fact though, that China has a weak rule of law, at best. The reason being that there is an established rule of protocol that high positioned people and their friends and family gets benefits that others don't. Thereby, a rule of protocol deminishes the rule of law.

Under the early years of the People's Republic of China(PRC) the high officials tempted by corruption were people within the CCP. Later it has become anyone from party officials and elected officials, to businessmen with high contacts. The combination of officials with absolute political control and a free market economy actually lead to even more corruption since power was easily bought by paying off only a few people. Now, is this a result of Communism? No, it is firstly a result from a long history of officials with much power on few hands and secondly a result from market forces putting a price on official decisions.

What about "the rule of protocol"? Rigid rules of bureaucratic procedures and social ideas of proper conduct combine to form this concept. The Chinese bureacratic tradtion comes from the fact that the Chinese dynasties have to a great extent been built by using an extensive bureaucratic system with an educated elite whose task was to enforce and keep the power of the central government out into the very edges of the empire. Bureaucracy have therefore proved to be the best way of maintaining power. One of the most important pillars of the Chinese system of government have therefore become a system of rank, in which the person with the most education (now: contacts and lineage) outranks the next.

The social ideas of proper conduct derives from Confucianism, the dominant life-philosophy throughout Chinese history. Here, respect for traditions and ancestors is above all else. Any person not conducting his or her life according to what is morally correct according to tradition and the ancient texts of Confucius and others, is viewed as weak or bad person. Combining this respect for tradition on the one hand, and the bureaucratic tradition on the other, forms the Chinese enormous respect for established rules of conduct and rank. Lastly, it should be mentioned that "saving face", which I also have written about in an earlier post, contributes to this respect.

PS. My definitions:
The rule of protocol - Established rules and/or traditions as to what is correct or accepted behaviour. That is, smaller issues and daily life questions.
The rule of law - That all decicions are made according to laws, not subjective opninions. That is, firmly established laws that the population and government both must live by.